BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SWI is known for its detailed visualization of the cerebral venous system and seems to be a promising tool for early detection of cerebrovascular pathologies in children, who are frequently sedated for MR imaging. Because sedation influences cerebral hemodynamics, we hypothesized that it would affect cerebral venous contrast in SWI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SWI (125 examinations) of 26 patients (age, 2-16 years) was reviewed in this study. Images were acquired of patients sedated with propofol. Reviewers classified the images by weak or strong venous contrast. Physiologic data, such as etCO(2), BP, age, and CBF by arterial spin-labeling, were monitored and collected during MR imaging. A generalized estimating equation approach was used to model associations of these parameters with venous contrast. RESULTS: EtCO(2) and CBF were found to correlate with venous contrast, suggesting that patients with high etCO(2) and CBF have weak contrast and patients with low etCO(2) and CBF have strong contrast. BP was also found to correlate with the venous contrast of SWI, suggesting that patients with high BP have strong venous contrast. No significant correlations were found for any other physiologic parameters. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the venous contrast in SWI is affected by propofol sedation in spontaneously breathing patients. We also found that low etCO(2), low CBF, and high BP are associated with strong venous contrast. Reviewing SWI data in light of physiologic measures may therefore help prevent potential misinterpretations of weak venous contrast in SWI examinations under propofol sedation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SWI is known for its detailed visualization of the cerebral venous system and seems to be a promising tool for early detection of cerebrovascular pathologies in children, who are frequently sedated for MR imaging. Because sedation influences cerebral hemodynamics, we hypothesized that it would affect cerebral venous contrast in SWI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SWI (125 examinations) of 26 patients (age, 2-16 years) was reviewed in this study. Images were acquired of patients sedated with propofol. Reviewers classified the images by weak or strong venous contrast. Physiologic data, such as etCO(2), BP, age, and CBF by arterial spin-labeling, were monitored and collected during MR imaging. A generalized estimating equation approach was used to model associations of these parameters with venous contrast. RESULTS:EtCO(2) and CBF were found to correlate with venous contrast, suggesting that patients with high etCO(2) and CBF have weak contrast and patients with low etCO(2) and CBF have strong contrast. BP was also found to correlate with the venous contrast of SWI, suggesting that patients with high BP have strong venous contrast. No significant correlations were found for any other physiologic parameters. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the venous contrast in SWI is affected by propofol sedation in spontaneously breathing patients. We also found that low etCO(2), low CBF, and high BP are associated with strong venous contrast. Reviewing SWI data in light of physiologic measures may therefore help prevent potential misinterpretations of weak venous contrast in SWI examinations under propofol sedation.
Authors: Alexander Rauscher; Jan Sedlacik; Markus Barth; E Mark Haacke; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Allen Young; Andrea Poretti; Thangamadhan Bosemani; Reema Goel; Thierry A G M Huisman Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: J Sedlacik; A Winchell; M Kocak; R B Loeffler; A Broniscer; C M Hillenbrand Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A M Winchell; B A Taylor; R Song; R B Loeffler; P Grundlehner; J S Hankins; W C Wang; R J Ogg; C M Hillenbrand; K J Helton Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ulrike Löbel; Nils Daniel Forkert; Peter Schmitt; Thorsten Dohrmann; Maria Schroeder; Tim Magnus; Stefan Kluge; Christina Weiler-Normann; Xiaoming Bi; Jens Fiehler; Jan Sedlacik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Adam M Winchell; Ruitian Song; Ralf B Loeffler; Winfred C Wang; Jane S Hankins; Kathleen J Helton; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: J Healthc Eng Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 2.682